8 ms·

Poland has the lowest quantity of firearms in Europe and you want to change that? A bit strange yes? I don't think private firearms are very useful for intern

Poland has the lowest quantity of firearms in Europe and you want to change that? A bit strange yes? I don't think private firearms are very useful for international conflicts like Ukraine/Russia or to defeat terrorist attacks.

91bananas 10y ago
No, but they may become extremely useful in times of civil unrest if that were to happen.
- webmaven 10y ago
  > [Firearms] may become extremely useful in times of civil unrest Not really: * There is always someone with a bigger gun * There is always someone who wants to steal your gun/ammo * There is always a bigger gang that wants to steal your gun If your solution is to join up with others to make your gang the biggest/best armed and enforcing a monopoly on the use of violence, congratulations, you've either reinvented Warlordism, or in the best case, reinvented the idea of a police force, depending on whether or not the head of the gang answers to a civil authority whose legitimacy comes from something other than "might makes right". All that said, I don't mean that firearms aren't at all useful, just that they aren't more useful than other important tools. You for a group to be able to defend itself you will find that basics like picks, shovels, sledgehammers, crowbars, hammer and nails, axes and hatchets, saws, ladders, wheelbarrows etc. are all at least as useful as a firearm. Generally speaking, making the other guy waste his ammo can be a winning strategy.
  - splintercell 10y ago
    Literally none of these arguments are valid in case of the actual civil unrest situations which happen, whether it's LA riots of 1992 or Somalia. Clearly if you're planning to hold a big cache of firearms, then that becomes an incentive for other gangs to go after you, but most of the time, there are plenty of unarmed people out there which present an easier target. The aim of firearm ownership at the time of civil unrest is to not be an easier target for bad elements. Somehow implying that by owning firearms you become a bigger target than an unarmed household is ridiculously dishonest statement.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      > by owning firearms you become a bigger target than an unarmed household That's overstating my argument. Let me boil it down further (at the risk of some nuance being lost): Firearms are useful, but not extremely useful. 1) Firearms are not a panacea, and there are plenty of other tools that are at least as important, and a few that are more important. Lack of clean water is a lot more likely to kill you than lack of a firearm. 2) Rather than focusing on personal defense where everyone needs one or more firearms, a better approach is community defense, which at the Dunbar Limit (~ a small village) scale requires at most 1/3 of the firearms, so the resources that the other 2/3 would represent can be spent on other things.
      - splintercell 10y ago
        Look I don't disagree with you, but we're talking about a Civil Unrest here (which must account for LA riots style situation), not necessarily a Jericho like situation. In other words, if you assign a probability of 1 against a Kristallnacht scenario, then nearly all your self-defense effort should be spent on your own security and nothing on community. On the other hand, if you assign a probability of 1 against a Jericho style scenario where either foreign invaders or neighboring town or an illegitimate federal govt attacks your town then maybe 1/3rd-2/3rd split might work. The idea is, firearms are possibly the most effective protective measure you can use in all situations, things like clean water preparation might not help you if you're worried about Kristallnacht.
        webmaven 10y ago
        > Look I don't disagree with you, but [...] [shrug] Agree to agree to disagree on the remaining point? P.S. I would recommend you use a generic term such as "false flag" in the future, rather than any specific historical event. There are those for whom those events have personal significance.
  - iUsedToCode 10y ago
    I'm not into the 'zombie apocalypse' type scenarios, but you can't be serious in thinking that hammers are as efective as a shotgun. Plus, note that we only make it easier to get a permit if you're a sane, law-abiding adult.
  - 91bananas 10y ago
    wut
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Poland is actually the site of one of the biggest uses of personal firearms in international conflict. The Jews held off the Nazis for about 5 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising Might have been nice if it happened all across Poland rather than just Warsaw.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Thanks for bringing up this. This is actually a really good example for why we don't want to ban weapons: Genocides are often perpetrated by the country the victims actually belong to. Examples: Germany under Nazism, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, -I'm fairly sure the list goes on. I feel totally safe and I'm actually happy knowing that many of my neighbors have weapons. Especially here in Norway were I know there are strict background checks on who gets permits. (For Americans: What I would do is start cooperating with NRA like Nordic countries has traditionally done with their local equivalents. Work not to prohibit guns but to promote safe storage and safe practices.)
  - Lordarminius 10y ago
    Genocide is an extreme condition and a poor reason to extend gun ownership. There is a very long list of countries that are doing better than fine and severely restricting gun ownership. Long before it becomes the case that you need guns to defend your space, you may want to take a long hard look at the politics of your community / country.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      There is a very long list of countries that are doing better than fine and severely restricting gun ownership. There are long lists of entities who safely ignore tail risk events - that's true almost by the definition of "tail risk". That doesn't mean buying a cheap insurance policy against tail risk events is a bad idea.
      - 10y ago
iUsedToCode 10y ago
I might have chosen wrong arguments, i agree. Most of the people get permits for sports or just collecting. We're not creating another Army or militia. I don't believe that a couple thousands of gun owners, with no disicpline or logistics could change the outcome of any conflict. But having a permit helps with the attitude of readiness and self sufficiency. The times are right, because many people are researching guns now due to external factors. It's a growing market for such NGO as mine (even though i don't profit off it). Plus, take into account that US has a very messed up situation with guns, laws and relations between groups of people. Nobody's trying to copy that over here, we have better role models.

91bananas 10y ago

No, but they may become extremely useful in times of civil unrest if that were to happen.

webmaven 10y ago
> [Firearms] may become extremely useful in times of civil unrest Not really: * There is always someone with a bigger gun * There is always someone who wants to steal your gun/ammo * There is always a bigger gang that wants to steal your gun If your solution is to join up with others to make your gang the biggest/best armed and enforcing a monopoly on the use of violence, congratulations, you've either reinvented Warlordism, or in the best case, reinvented the idea of a police force, depending on whether or not the head of the gang answers to a civil authority whose legitimacy comes from something other than "might makes right". All that said, I don't mean that firearms aren't at all useful, just that they aren't more useful than other important tools. You for a group to be able to defend itself you will find that basics like picks, shovels, sledgehammers, crowbars, hammer and nails, axes and hatchets, saws, ladders, wheelbarrows etc. are all at least as useful as a firearm. Generally speaking, making the other guy waste his ammo can be a winning strategy.
- splintercell 10y ago
  Literally none of these arguments are valid in case of the actual civil unrest situations which happen, whether it's LA riots of 1992 or Somalia. Clearly if you're planning to hold a big cache of firearms, then that becomes an incentive for other gangs to go after you, but most of the time, there are plenty of unarmed people out there which present an easier target. The aim of firearm ownership at the time of civil unrest is to not be an easier target for bad elements. Somehow implying that by owning firearms you become a bigger target than an unarmed household is ridiculously dishonest statement.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > by owning firearms you become a bigger target than an unarmed household That's overstating my argument. Let me boil it down further (at the risk of some nuance being lost): Firearms are useful, but not extremely useful. 1) Firearms are not a panacea, and there are plenty of other tools that are at least as important, and a few that are more important. Lack of clean water is a lot more likely to kill you than lack of a firearm. 2) Rather than focusing on personal defense where everyone needs one or more firearms, a better approach is community defense, which at the Dunbar Limit (~ a small village) scale requires at most 1/3 of the firearms, so the resources that the other 2/3 would represent can be spent on other things.
    - splintercell 10y ago
      Look I don't disagree with you, but we're talking about a Civil Unrest here (which must account for LA riots style situation), not necessarily a Jericho like situation. In other words, if you assign a probability of 1 against a Kristallnacht scenario, then nearly all your self-defense effort should be spent on your own security and nothing on community. On the other hand, if you assign a probability of 1 against a Jericho style scenario where either foreign invaders or neighboring town or an illegitimate federal govt attacks your town then maybe 1/3rd-2/3rd split might work. The idea is, firearms are possibly the most effective protective measure you can use in all situations, things like clean water preparation might not help you if you're worried about Kristallnacht.
      - webmaven 10y ago
        > Look I don't disagree with you, but [...] [shrug] Agree to agree to disagree on the remaining point? P.S. I would recommend you use a generic term such as "false flag" in the future, rather than any specific historical event. There are those for whom those events have personal significance.
- iUsedToCode 10y ago
  I'm not into the 'zombie apocalypse' type scenarios, but you can't be serious in thinking that hammers are as efective as a shotgun. Plus, note that we only make it easier to get a permit if you're a sane, law-abiding adult.
- 91bananas 10y ago
  wut

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Poland is actually the site of one of the biggest uses of personal firearms in international conflict. The Jews held off the Nazis for about 5 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising Might have been nice if it happened all across Poland rather than just Warsaw.

reitanqild 10y ago
Thanks for bringing up this. This is actually a really good example for why we don't want to ban weapons: Genocides are often perpetrated by the country the victims actually belong to. Examples: Germany under Nazism, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, -I'm fairly sure the list goes on. I feel totally safe and I'm actually happy knowing that many of my neighbors have weapons. Especially here in Norway were I know there are strict background checks on who gets permits. (For Americans: What I would do is start cooperating with NRA like Nordic countries has traditionally done with their local equivalents. Work not to prohibit guns but to promote safe storage and safe practices.)
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  Genocide is an extreme condition and a poor reason to extend gun ownership. There is a very long list of countries that are doing better than fine and severely restricting gun ownership. Long before it becomes the case that you need guns to defend your space, you may want to take a long hard look at the politics of your community / country.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    There is a very long list of countries that are doing better than fine and severely restricting gun ownership. There are long lists of entities who safely ignore tail risk events - that's true almost by the definition of "tail risk". That doesn't mean buying a cheap insurance policy against tail risk events is a bad idea.
    - 10y ago

iUsedToCode 10y ago

I might have chosen wrong arguments, i agree. Most of the people get permits for sports or just collecting. We're not creating another Army or militia. I don't believe that a couple thousands of gun owners, with no disicpline or logistics could change the outcome of any conflict. But having a permit helps with the attitude of readiness and self sufficiency. The times are right, because many people are researching guns now due to external factors. It's a growing market for such NGO as mine (even though i don't profit off it). Plus, take into account that US has a very messed up situation with guns, laws and relations between groups of people. Nobody's trying to copy that over here, we have better role models.